Folks,
This telecon has been moved to 6pm central time. Sorry about the late
notice. The telecon number on the wiki link below is still correct.
Thanks,
-- Pavan
On 05/12/2011 02:15 AM, Pavan Balaji wrote:
> All,
>
> We'll have our next telecon on Monday at 1pm central time. The telecon
> information is on the wiki:
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Hybrid
>
> Main agenda items:
>
> 1. Shared memory proposal:
>
> (a) discussion on MPI_Shm_sync
>
> (b) discussion on the communicator creation functionality based on
> the Forum feedback
>
> 2. Helper teams proposal: we need to go through the Forum feedback and
> figure out what the next steps are.
>
> 3. Endpoints proposal: simplify the proposal and plan for a plenary at
> the next meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Pavan
>
--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
you may want to confirm again what time slot you select, after all the message exchanges.
On May 12, 2011, at 2:15 AM, Pavan Balaji wrote:
> All,
>
> We'll have our next telecon on Monday at 1pm central time. The telecon information is on the wiki: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Hybrid
>
> Main agenda items:
>
> 1. Shared memory proposal:
>
> (a) discussion on MPI_Shm_sync
>
> (b) discussion on the communicator creation functionality based on the Forum feedback
>
> 2. Helper teams proposal: we need to go through the Forum feedback and figure out what the next steps are.
>
> 3. Endpoints proposal: simplify the proposal and plan for a plenary at the next meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Pavan
>
> --
> Pavan Balaji
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
> _______________________________________________
> Mpi3-hybridpm mailing list
> Mpi3-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-hybridpm
That time likely does not work for me as I think it lines
up with when I will be giving a talk at HP-PAC.
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Pavan Balaji wrote:
> All,
>
> We'll have our next telecon on Monday at 1pm central time. The telecon
> information is on the wiki:
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Hybrid
>
> Main agenda items:
>
> 1. Shared memory proposal:
>
> (a) discussion on MPI_Shm_sync
>
> (b) discussion on the communicator creation functionality based on
> the Forum feedback
>
> 2. Helper teams proposal: we need to go through the Forum feedback and
> figure out what the next steps are.
>
> 3. Endpoints proposal: simplify the proposal and plan for a plenary at
> the next meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Pavan
>
> --
> Pavan Balaji
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
> _______________________________________________
> Mpi3-hybridpm mailing list
> Mpi3-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-hybridpm
>
All,
We'll have our next telecon on Monday at 1pm central time. The telecon
information is on the wiki:
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Hybrid
Main agenda items:
1. Shared memory proposal:
(a) discussion on MPI_Shm_sync
(b) discussion on the communicator creation functionality based on
the Forum feedback
2. Helper teams proposal: we need to go through the Forum feedback and
figure out what the next steps are.
3. Endpoints proposal: simplify the proposal and plan for a plenary at
the next meeting.
Thanks,
-- Pavan
--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
We had the plenary session for the Hybrid WG, where I presented the
attached slides.
For the shared memory proposal, we discussed the shared memory
communicator creation function. The following comments were raised:
1. The communicator creation function should be broader than shared
memory alone. It can just take an info key and create any type of
communicator with information from the MPI library. E.g., processes
sharing an I/O node, or processes on a socket, etc.
2. The function should return an MPI_Group rather than a communicator,
in order to avoid using up context IDs.
3. There was some more discussion on whether MPI_Shm_sync is actually
unusable, which I can summarize during the next telecon.
For the helper threads proposal, the following comments were made:
1. OpenMP tasks vs. threads. What happens when the user's view of OpenMP
threads is not the same as the number of actual system threads
available. Some tasks might be waiting in a MPI_Team_leave function, so
other tasks might not get scheduled at all.
2. Why does this need to be in MPI? Why can't this be a separate library
that provides thread resources to applications, MPI, math libraries, etc.?
3. The Forum wants to see a better use case for it than just
micro-benchmarks and demonstrate that it actually helps on multiple
platforms, not just BG/P.
4. The naming has to be improved.
-- Pavan
--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
